General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA case based on jealousy and innuendo, the hounding of Lance Armstrong.
Last night Lance Armstrong basically through in the towel in his case against USADA. I can understand, even before he won retired from the sport of cycling, he was being hounded about whether or not he was doping, and if anything it got more intense after he won his seventh Tour de France.
Yet despite all these allegations, after hundreds of tests, it has never been been proven, no facts have been presented that show that Lance did anything illegal or unethical. In fact the only "evidence" that has been presented against Armstrong was that he won, everybody else was doping, and hearsay. Not much of a case, in fact so little of a case that the US prosecutors dropped their investigation earlier this year. Sadly, the USADA picked up the ball, and in an investigation that is both unconstitutional, and breaks the USADA's own rules and regulations, and hounded Armstrong to this bitter end.
I can understand why Armstrong finally said "fuck it" and dropped his defense. For the past twelve years he has had to pay a heavy price for winning, not just in money, but in time, stress, hassle and peace of mind. It finally comes to a point where you wonder if all of this is worth it anymore, trying to prove a negative, over and over again. Armstrong wants to get on with his life, and it seems as though the best way of doing that was to drop his defense.
A case based on the fact that Armstrong won a record number of titles, and gossip. That's all they had against him. So, now with Armstrong out of the picture, are the powers that be going to go hounding after Michael Phelps? After all, like Armstrong, he won a record number of medals. Sad to see that jealous little minds are able to strip an athlete out of his well deserved rewards with no factual proof whatsoever.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)To defend his good name and sue those slanderous officials and fellow racers?
Why stop fighting?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Going to court year in, year out, not able to move on with your life? I know I wouldn't.
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)People tend to wanna preserve their legacy if it was achieved fair and square.
Slander is something Armstrong could file lawsuits for, right? I do think he can afford legal representation.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The reason Lance isn't fighting the charges is because he doesn't want the evidence to become public. This way he can keep accusing the USADA of a witch hunt, and people who don't know anything about what was happening with cycling and the USPostal team might believe him. For example, this OP.
If it went to arbitration, and whole lineup of ex-teammates, assistants, doctors, etc. all testified to what they saw, and if the public became educated about EPO, blood doping, testosterone, HGH, and everything else that was going on, it would be a lot harder for him to maintain his fan-base of people who only know him as a cancer survivor.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)No way does an innocent person just give up, when so much is at stake.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...The reason he isn't fighting, as he quite clearly stated in his own words, was that the USADA clearly has an agenda that it has threatened others into co-operating so that they too don't have to suffer having their reputations ruined, that the USADA is going back 16 years, even though their stated statute of limitations is 8 years, and they have offered ZERO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF DOPING...so rather than submit to a crooked and blatantly biased "arbitration process" he, like the UCI and USCycling said "fuck this" and walked away.
FYI, the UCI has told the USADA they want to see this "evidence" before even thinking about taking away Lance's hard-earned Tour De France victories...
malaise
(268,976 posts)
sarisataka
(18,633 posts)is so many will say- see he is guilty. They will not consider the physical and monetary cost of fighting a witch hunt. The USADA conveniently forgets to mention how many of its own rules it broke to 'prove' their case. They also forgot they do not have the authority to strip his Tour titles when making their announcement. The UCI is in charge of pro cycling.
24.08.2012
The UCI notes Lance Armstrong’s decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that USADA has brought against him.
The UCI recognises that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code.
Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.
As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.
Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make.
UCI Press Services
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?source=SiteSearch&id=ODYzOA&MenuId=MTI2Mjg&CharValList=672%3B&CharTextList=&CharFromList=&CharToList=&txtSiteSearch=&SelChar214=672&LangId=1
The saddest part is the effect the USADA's witch hunt will have on the Livestrong foundation.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Are they saying that won't accept and officially recognize USADA's punative actions until they receive USADA's official report? Or are they saying that they won't accept USADA's actions no matter what?
sarisataka
(18,633 posts)but I doubt they would ignore conclusive proof of doping. There is an eight year statute of limitations that could be a problem in actually imposing sanctions.
I think your first question is what they are after. They are reminding USADA that if they are making a statement that they are stripping an athlete of titles there is a proper process to follow, not just have a one sided press conference. If indeed they have such evidence it must be presented to all concerned. The athlete may still choose to not contest but that alone is not an admission of guilt.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The Lance Armstrong Foundation hasn't actually funded any cancer research for a long time now -- since about 2005. Most of what they do is raise "awareness", whatever that means (is there anyone who is not aware of cancer?). What that seems to mean in practice is cultivating the Lance Armstrong brand. Here's one article about it:
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all
...
Equally interesting is what the foundation doesn’t do. Most people—including nearly everybody I surveyed while reporting this story—assume that Livestrong funnels large amounts of money into cancer research. Nope. The foundation gave out a total of $20 million in research grants between 1998 and 2005, the year it began phasing out its support of hard science. A note on the foundation’s website informs visitors that, as of 2010, it no longer even accepts research proposals.
sarisataka
(18,633 posts)I haven't seen Lance in a while. We only met a couple times and is not what I would call a 'friend'. (Grade A jackass maybe and not the good kind 
)
Still I have serious doubts about the USADA's partiality in this issue. Armstrong pissed them off and they have been out to get him ever since. If they are not above ignoring their rules to prove he doped, what else would they be willing to do?
I raced against LeMond and really enjoyed his company but would have to say he is not without a dog in this fight as well.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Also, you must understand the effects of EPO or blood doping, that it's not just a "shortcut" for people that don't want to work hard. Forgetting for the time being about the politics and the USADA and who has an axe to grind, do you really believe that Armstrong could possibly have won clean when Ullrich, Pantani, and everyone else were doped to the gills?
sarisataka
(18,633 posts)he kicked my ass 
I was in between the blood boosting and full EPO era. We knew many who did push the limits of what was 'legal' and those who crossed the line. Almost everyone was looking for an edge.
It is hard to believe that Armstrong could have beaten those riders as you point out BUT
some who rode against him, and though I never raced Armstrong I agree, had the opinion that pre-cancer he did not like to push himself to his limits. He would drop out of the Tour to 'save himself' for the World Championship, which he thought of as the greater prize. Post cancer he realizde that being WC did not carry the same prestige as a Tour winner. He went all out to to win the Tour.
Did a brush with death make him realize he only has one life and he needed 100% effort to reach his goal- likely. Did he push the 'legal' line- I'm sure of it. Did he cross it? I would like the evidence to be reviewed.
I believed Landis at first so have been burned but I am not yet jaded. He was good enough pre-cancer that I will give him the benefit until the evidence is revealed.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Greg LeMond, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis etc. In order to believe that Lance is clean, you not only have to believe that he is so superhuman that he beat a field of riders doped to the gills, you also have to believe that there is a vast conspiracy, including fellow riders, trainers, assistants, etc., all of whom are making up stories just because they hate him so much. Oh, and not to mention that he actually tested positive for banned substances twice (at least).
It's too bad it took this long for Lance to get caught, but it's great for the sport that he wasn't able to get away with it in the end.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)It's only speculation on exactly what evidence it has in hand.
Certainly, any testimony coming from Tyler Hamilton must be considered damning, but the same couldn't be said of testimony coming from Floyd Landis (known serial liar) or Greg LeMond (12-year-long axe to grind). Also, I don't know the other positive test for banned substances you're referring to, but at least one of them involved nothing more than a simple corticosteroid Armstrong used to alleviate saddle-soreness.
Read his biography. He is the king of lawsuit filers.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)I know they claim it's a new era, but why shouldn't I still believe that it's nothing but a continued advantage-seeking arms race simply with different drug/doping procedure names?
It's all well and good to strip your seven time in a row champion of your biggest Tour, but after that... what the heck is left of your "sport"?
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)..and 3) the assumption that he must have been doping because he beat other dopers means that you think that all athletes have precisely the same performances and it's only the dope that separates them. That's as stupid as saying that I could beat Usain Bolt in a 100 meter race if I doped, OR, if i did use dope and he STILL beat me he MUST have been using dope as well because he beat me...that's just stupid 4) he passed all of his tests with flying colours at the time they were administered.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)The same grand jury that didn't find enough evidence in the case, which is why federal prosecutors dropped the case earlier this year.
So what makes you think that those witnesses' testimony would have been so devastating now?
Also, show me an official pre or post race test that was positive. Oh, wait, neither you nor anybody else can.
And again, you're basing most of your opinion on the fact that he won. OMG, somebody who has had testicular cancer can't, just can't win the Tour unless they were cheating.
ananda
(28,859 posts)Testicular cancer is one of the hallmarks of that.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Oh, and he didn't win his seven titles until after he had beaten testicular cancer.
trumad
(41,692 posts)The evidence with testimony of 10 of his former teammates would annihilate his story.
Innocent people don't give up.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Heresay testimony under threat of prosecution does not equate to evidence.
He has been fighting this fight since he first started winning and the last time I checked lawyers cost money....
This USADA witch-hunt is as legitimate a playing-field as "when did you stop beating your wife" is a legitimate question...
The deck was stacked against him in a blatantly un-constitutional process (one that even the USADA itself violated their own rules in order to get him) and so he chose to fight the only way he knew how...by NOT legitimizing their kangaroo court and telling them to fuck off.
Good for him.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'm sure your status as a super fan will warm Lance's heart for years to come...
(super fan - witch hunt - jealousy- kangaroo court... six of one half a dozen of the other. However, I'm sure you'll rationalize why your melodramatics rhetoric is valid as opposed to the meanies using scurrilous terms like... well, super-fan)
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)The testimony given in front of a grand jury, by some of the same former teammates didn't seem to annihilate his story earlier this year. Quite the contrary, federal prosecutors decided to drop the case.
And yes, innocent people give up, get railroaded all the time. There's a limit to how much stress, pressure, and monetary drain that a person can take.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...because using drugs to cheat in a French bike race is not against US law. There was enough evidence to prove that he cheated, but not to support a case of criminal conspiracy.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)"In a press release, United States Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. says the case has been closed but didn't disclose the reason for the decision.
"Investigators looked at whether a doping program was created to keep Armstrong and his teammates running at the head of the pack while, at least part of the time, they received government sponsorship from the U.S. Postal Service."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/02/03/146367797/federal-prosecutors-drop-doping-case-against-cyclist-lance-armstrong
So now you're just talking out your ass.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's because there wasn't enough evidence to support criminal charges. That doesn't mean there's not enough evidence to support charges of cheating in a French bike race.
Athletes get busted for doping all the time. They don't go to jail as a result, because it's not against the law. Instead, they get suspended and stripped of their titles, like Lance Armstrong.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Seriously, I'm quoting the statement by the fed prosecutor, what have you got?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The reason prosecutors drop cases is because they don't think they can bring a criminal case and prove that a law was broken. But cheating in a bike race in France is not against the law. Therefore, the fact that they dropped the criminal case does not imply that they didn't uncover evidence that Lance Armstrong doped. It only proves that they didn't feel that they had enough evidence to bring a criminal case of conspiracy or fraud or trafficking in illegal substances.
Is this really so complicated?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Fed prosecutors drop cases for many reasons, not enough evidence, coming to the conclusion that the defendant isn't guilty, etc. etc. Birotte gave NO reason whatsoever, and your pitiful attempt to stick words in his mouth and ascribe motivations to his actions simply reflect the fact that you have no facts to back yourself up with.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You're the one claiming that the fact that they dropped the case somehow implies that they didn't find evidence enough to prove that Lance Armstrong was doping. But there's no basis for that claim. The prosecutors didn't find enough evidence to bring a criminal case, which is an entirely different thing.
In terms of facts, there is a huge volume of evidence that Lance Armstrong doped, including two positive tests, eyewitness testimony from a dozen or so witnesses (including former teammates, a masseuse, an assistant, ...), the fact that he was able to handily beat other world-class racers who were doped to the gills, and now the fact that the agency officially in charged of doping control has banned him and revoked all his titles.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)What are you providing as evidence? Innuendo and the fact that he won. That will make a real case now.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You quoted the prosecutor as saying no comment. How does that prove that Armstrong is innocent of doping?
The evidence against him is very strong. Ten eyewitnesses and two positive tests is not "innuendo".
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Can you show me any link to these "two positive tests" that you're going on about?
Second, if the evidence was so very strong as you claim, why did the grand jury file no charges, why did the prosecutor decide not to prosecute? Oh, and many of those "ten witnesses" already testified to the grand jury.
Yes. The first is the corticosteroids in 1999. Armstrong tested positive for a banned substance. He later claimed to have a therapeutic use exemption, but this was a violation of testing protocol. For obvious reasons, you need to list your exemptions before, not after you test positive. So he should have been sanctioned, but they let him slide.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/magazine/05/23/lance.armstrong/index.html
The second were the positive EPO tests from the 99 tour. In '99, there was no test for the banned substance EPO (which helps explain Armstrong's negative tests...). When a test was later developed, they went back and tested the '99 samples as part of a research program. Six of Armstrong's samples were found to have EPO in them. Here's an extensive interview with sports physiologist Michael Ashenden about those tests.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
The reason the prosecutor decided not to prosecute is because he didn't think they could prove criminal case. In other words, they didn't think they could prove that Armstong broke US laws. They were looking into things like conspiracy, fraud, trafficking in illegal substances, etc., but they didn't have the evidence.
That doesn't imply, in any way, that they didn't find evidence that Armstrong was doping. And this is because cheating in a French bike race is not a violation of US laws. Yes, a lot of the ten witnesses did testify in front of the grand jury. That means that they've now testified under oath. They are prepared to give the same testimony in USADA arbitrations. The reason Armstrong is giving up and avoiding arbitration is not because he's sick of the witch hunt (he's been fighting this for ten years, do you really think he'd quit now, after all that?), it's because he doesn't want the evidence to be made public, that way he can keep claiming plausible deniability.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Trouble is your "facts" simply don't tell the whole story. About the corticosteroid:
"A urine sample taken from Armstrong shows corticosteroid in an amount not in the positive range. According to a medical certificate, he had used an approved cream for saddle sores that contained corticosteroid."
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2012/08/24/f-lance-armstrong-timeline.html?cmp=rss
In other words, he did test positive for corticosteroids, but rather they showed up in minute amounts. Why? Because he was using a cream to keep his ass from getting chapped. Frankly, having done bike races myself, I don't blame him.
As far as the EPO tests are concerned,
"The scientists at the LNDD have repeatedly stressed that they do not know the identities of the riders who, L'Equipe is alleging, were using EPO in 1998 and 1999. Up to now, L'Equipe has only identified Armstrong, based on their own research, but in today's edition of the French sports daily it is claimed that samples provided by no less than four riders in that year's prologue, including Armstrong, showed evidence of EPO use."
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/opinion-split-over-armstrong-accusations-9692/?mp=1
So in other words, L'Equipe, and anybody else claiming that some of these samples were Armstrong's are simply talking out their ass. Not to mention that there were issues with how the samples were stored, treated, kept secure, etc. etc.
So you're right, the feds couldn't charge Armstrong with anything. So along comes the USADA who violated it's own rules, in its pursuit of the Armstrong case.
"Among the Court's concerns is the fact that USADA has targeted Armstrong for prosecution many years after his alleged doping violations occurred, and intends to consolidate his case with those of several other alleged offenders, including - incredibly - several over whom USA Cycling and USOC apparently have no authority whatsoever. Further, if Armstrong's allegations are true, and USADA is promising lesser sanctions against other allegedly offending riders in exchange for their testimony against Armstrong, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that USADA is motivated more by politics and a desire for media attention than faithful adherence to its obligations to USOC."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-issues-stinging-criticism-of-usada-in-armstrong-case
So, what are we left with here? No real evidence after all, and an organization, the USADA, undertaking a witch hunt and hellbound to find Armstrong guilty no matter the cost, even if that means violating its own rules and the Constitution.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...what I was referring to. You obviously have strong feelings about Armstrong, yet you know next to nothing about the evidence against him, or about doping in sport. Why is that? Isn't it better to educate yourself first?
About the corticosteroids, he only produced the prescription after the positive test, not before. That was a violation of protocol, and he should have been sanctioned. Obviously. That he let him slide is testament to the corruption of the UCI. If you have testing protocols, and then you don't enforce them, of course Armstrong is going to come out clean.
As far as the EPO tests, the urine was kept in sealed test tubes, and they were marked only by number so even if someone wanted to spiken them, they wouldn't have known which ones were Armstrong's. You really should read the Ashenden interview. It's extremely in-depth and will answer your questions.
Finally, you have this habit of quoting people and then attributing thing to them that they didn't actually say. The judge didn't actually say that USADA broke their own rules. You are the only one saying that. Armstrong agreed to the USADA's implementation of the WADA code, including the arbitration, the day he became a professional cyclist. Also, the idea that what USADA is doing is unconstitutional is absurd. The constitution says nothing about the way sports organizations are supposed to control for cheating, obviously.
In the end, we have two positive tests and ten eyewitnesses. Do you really think all ten of the eyewitnesses lied under oath?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I just wanted to see what sort of stupid BS you were going to spew.
As far as the corticosteroids go, I guess you just skipped right over the part that said, "A urine sample taken from Armstrong shows corticosteroid in an amount not in the positive range." Got that, "not is the positive range". Perhaps that's why the UCI let him slide on producing the prescription. Or perhaps it is some sort of grand conspiracy involving Armstrong, the UCI, the feds, black helicopters, and whatever else you can come up with to get Lance to a record number of titles.
Nice to see you agree with me that we actually don't know whether those were Armstrong's samples that were tested or not. L'Equipe didn't know either, they were just writing copy to shake up a scandal and sell copy. So those allegations turn out to be baseless.
As far as the judge goes, I guess you didn't go to the link I provided. What, do I have to copy and paste the whole article?
"As mystifying as USADA's election to proceed at this date and in this manner may be, it is equally perplexing that these three national and international bodies are apparently unable to work together to accomplish their shared goal - the regulation and promotion of cycling. However, if these bodies wish to damage the image of their sport through bitter infighting, they will have to do so without the involvement of the United States courts," Sparks wrote.
The decision agreed with Armstrong's argument that he was not provided with an adequate charging document."
That not only goes against the USADA's own rules, but against Constitutional procedure as well.
In the end, no positive tests and lots of innuendo and jealousy.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It was a trace amount, but it was still a positive test. I'm not sure what that article means by "not in the positive range", but the test was positive enough that he needed a Therapeutic Use Exemption to avoid penalty. Which he provided after the fact, in violation of protocol. If you have doping protocols, you have to enforce them, otherwise there is no hope. Alberto Contador lost his title over a trace amount of clenbuterol, that could also be considered "not in the positive range". From the SI article:
"They agreed to backdate a medical prescription," O'Reilly tells SI. "They'd gotten a heads up that [Armstrong's] steroid count was high and decided they would actually do a backdated prescription and pretend it was something for saddle sores."
In violation of its own protocol requiring a TUE for use of such a drug, officials from the UCI announced that Armstrong had used a corticosteroid for his skin and his positive result was excused. O'Reilly also told SI that, just before the start of the '99 Tour, Armstrong asked her to use some of her cosmetics to cover up injection marks on his arm, though O'Reilly does not know what substance Armstrong had injected. O'Reilly made these same allegations in a 2004 book about Armstrong, published only in French, called L.A. Confidentiel. Armstrong subsequently filed a libel suit against O'Reilly, the book's authors and its publisher. He also sued The Sunday Times of London for reprinting the allegations in a review of the book. (Armstrong settled The Times case for an apology and recovery of his legal costs, and dropped the others.)
About the EPO samples, yes, we do know they were Armstrongs, because the reporters got hold of the documents that listed which samples were Armstrong's. The people in the lab performing the tests didn't know which were which at the time that they performed the tests, but the reporters figured it out.
Finally, sorry, but that quote simply doesn't say that USADA is "breaking their own rules". And, you are going to have to point to the part of the Constitution that governs the rules that sports leagues are allowed to use to stop people from cheating. Do you think the use of instant replay in the NFL is unconstitutional?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)In Contador's case and Armstrong's case. Thanks, but I'll go with what the officials at the time did, but apparently you're wanting to cook up some grand conspiracy between Armstrong and the UCI. The rest of your SI quote is nothing but hearsay.
As far as the L'Equipe accusations.
"Armstrong let the UCI handle the matter. An independent investigator, Emile Vrijman, issued an official report exonerating Armstrong and calling into question the lab's handling of confidential samples.
<snip>
. . .so there was no twin A and B sample as mandated under anti-doping regulations."
http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/1999-samples
Sloppy handling of the samples, poor chain of custody, unlinked samples, just more BS and blather. Nothing solid
As far as the USADA goes, yes, by its own rules it is required to provide a full set of the charges against them, not to mention a full list of evidence and witnesses. Just like in a regular court of law, as provided by the Constitution.
We could keep going at this all week, but I've got better things to do. The simple fact of the matter, which you haven't disproved, is that there are no legit positive tests, and the case against Armstrong is based on two simple things, hearsay evidence and the fact that Armstrong won. That's not much of a case.
So I'm ending this on my end, I see no further point in pursuing our conversation any further. So insert your weak rebuttal below and we can both go on our way.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...then Armstrong is a doper, banned for life, with zero Tour de France titles.
Or wait, let me get this straight. Lance tests positive for corticosteroids, but the officials break protocol to protect him, at which point your answer is "I'll go with the officials". But now that the officials have, based on evidence including ten eyewitnesses, decided to ban Armstrong and revoke all his titles, the "officials" are now on a witch hunt? A little consistency, please.
And one last thing. Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay. When Tyler Hamilton says that he saw Armstrong take blood transfusions and inject EPO, that's not hearsay. Hearsay would be if Hamiton testified that someone else told him that Armstrong was doing blood transfusions. The case is not based on hearsay.
If you're a sporting nobody, with no real legacy to defend, maybe you give up and move on with your life.
If you're perhaps the greatest cyclist that ever raced, with 7 Tour de France wins, and countless other awards and accolades, you defend yourself until your last dime and your last breath.
Giving up is for cowards.
Sid
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Drag your name through the mud, cost you tons of money, prevent you from moving on with your life, then can we see if you will keep slogging on?
You, like everybody else, have no proof of anything, just jealousy and gossip.
bmbmd
(3,088 posts)Lance overcame tremendous personal obstacles to dominate a demanding sport filled with world-class athletes who were backed by almost limitless resources. This dominance lasted for years and propelled Mr. Armstrong to fame and fortune. He used his notoriety to found an iconic charitable institution which has, at the very least, promoted health and cancer awareness. He has generally remained above the fray politically, has befriended leaders of both parties. He has met kings and queens, presidents and potentates, movie stars and business moguls. He remains fabulously wealthy, fabulously fit, and generally beloved. He has been romantically linked with some of the most desirable women in the world. All in all, not a bad run. My gut feeling is that five years from now, he will still be fit, still be wealthy, still be fighting cancer, and still be bedding superstars. The USADA's only lasting victory will be the utter devastation of America's give-a-shitness about a once modestly popular international sport.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)"SI TAKES A CLOSE LOOK AT OLD AND NEW ALLEGATIONS" Allegations, not proof, not evidence, just hearsay and innuendo. Oh, and that grand jury they were talking about, they didn't file any charges and the federal prosecutors dropped the case.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Right?
cali
(114,904 posts)the argument that if he hadn't doped, he'd be filing lawsuits and staying in to the bitter end, can be a fallacious one. People do just give up because they can't emotionally or mentally go on anymore.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Lance is guilty as sin, and though I'm tired of correcting people who know little about pro cycling and believe what they read in People magazine - here we go again:
1) Lance donated $125,000 to the UCI, the organization that's supposed to be testing him. They accepted it - shortly after Lance's positive EPO test, which was confirmed in frozen samples six years later. The same official who accepted money from Lance was also bribed by Japanese officials to the tune of $3,000,000 to introduce the keirin in the Olympics.
2) Scores of cyclists who later admitted to doping never failed a UCI doping test - just like Lance.
3) Lance LOST his case challenging the consitutionality of USADA's action.
4) Before you play the "Lance is a martyr" card, are you aware that virtually nothing of his cancer charity goes to research despite their aggressive promotion of that meme? That most of it goes to shuttling staff around the country on speaking engagements to promote "awareness" and further the Lance Armstrong brand? And on his website you'll find nary a mention to suggested links between testosterone supplementation and testicular cancer. What are the rates of testicular cancer in young athletes? What are the rates of testicular cancer in young athletes who are doping to win at any cost? I'm having difficulty finding any information on this subject at Livestrong.com...
5) As signatories to the World Anti-Doping Agency and the World Anti-Doping Code, USADA is 100% justified in investigating him for violations of WADC. The president of WADA has come out in support of USADA's actions. Lance, per WADC, was entitled to defend himself in an international court of arbitration, but like a spoiled child flipping the board when he starts losing at checkers, Lance is now "tired". Wahhhhh....
6) USADA was tired of dealing with Lance and his overinflated ego and $multimillion bullying campaign - until he threatened to come out of retirement to compete in the Vuelta and the Ironman. Travis Tygart said enough is enough, and they took him down. They won, Lance lost, and it's a significant victory for clean athletes in every sport.
Like a bad dream, can we let Lance just fade away now?
That's the most surprising thing. Somehow people want to cling to the idea that doping is a "shortcut" for people that don't want to work hard, and Armstrong would never do that because of cancer, that he just trained harder than everyone else, and that it's not about the bike, and "500 tests without a positive" and so on. I would have hoped that anyone really interested in this would be able to take a deep breath and look at the evidence, and put two and two together.
